Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Justdial लिमिटेड बनाम पीएन विग्नेश मा...
Corporate Law : SC slams High Court for 'playing it safe' on bail in Manish Sisodia's case, emphasizing that bail should be the norm, not the exce...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court quashes rape case, ruling consensual relationship. Calls for legal reforms to prevent misuse of penal laws against m...
Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राज्य बार काउंसिलों द्वारा अत्य...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore critical GST case laws from July 2024, including SCN issuance, personal hearing rights, appeal delays, and more. Essential...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Excise Duty : Supreme Court admits Ecoboard Industries Ltd.'s appeal on excise duty for intermediate products, questioning Tribunal's duty impo...
Excise Duty : Case Title: M/s. Marwadi Shares and Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27124/2023; Dat...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Income Tax : Supreme Court rules Vodafone Idea is not liable for TDS on payments to foreign telecom operators. The decision aligns with earlier...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court overrules India Cement case, ruling that MADA judgment should not be applied retrospectively to avoid disrupting pas...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court held that the Purchase Price as defined u/s. 2(18) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would not include purcha...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that Banks/ Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are obliged to adopt restructuring process of MSME as conte...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge an enrolment fee or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
Corporate Law : Explore the updated FAQs on the implementation of the EPFO judgment dated 04.11.2022. Understand proof requirements, pension compu...
Income Tax : Comprehensive guide on CBDT's directives for AOs concerning the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court verdict. Dive into its implication...
Income Tax : Supreme Court's circular outlines guidelines for filing written submissions, documents, and oral arguments before Constitution Ben...
Corporate Law : The establishment M/s Radhika Theatre, situated at Warangal, Telangana was covered under ESI Act w.e.f. 16.01.1981 on the basis of...
Union of India & ANR. Vs. Pradip Kumar Kedia Etc. (Supreme Court)- The wait list of candidates recommended by the Selection Board, has not been given effect to. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, the Central Government after taking into consideration the recommendations of the Selection Board make a list of persons selected for appointment as members.
Govind Yadav Versus The New India Insurance Company Limited (Supreme Court)- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the Tribunals and the Courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident.
Employees Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. O.L. of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited (Supreme Court of India)- In terms of Section 530(1), all revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due from the company to the Central or State Government or to a local authority, all wages or salary or any employee, in respect of the services rendered to the company and due for a period not exceeding 4 months all accrued holiday remuneration etc. and all sums due to any employee from provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees maintained by the company are payable in priority to all other debts.
Mrs. Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council & ANR. (Supreme Court) -In case of a Director, complaint should specifically spell out how and in what manner the Director was in charge of or was responsible to the accused Company for conduct of its business and mere bald statement that he or she was in charge of and was responsible to the company for conduct of its business is not sufficient. [Vide National Small Industries Corporation Limited vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another, (2010) 3 SCC 330].
Durga Charan Rautray Versus State of Orissa & Anr. (Supreme Court) – The appellant, while accepting payment on the preparation of the final bill, did not undertake that he would not raise any further claims. As such, we are satisfied that the judgment rendered in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., case (supra) leads to the irresistible conclusion, that despite receipt of payment on the preparation of the final bill, it was still open to the appellant to raise his unsatisfied claims before an arbitrator, under the contract agreement. Thirdly, it was no longer open to the respondents to contest the claim of the appellant on the instant issue after the appellant had obtained the court order dated 15.5.1981 which referred the disputes raised by the appellant to an arbitral tribunal.
Swami Vivekanand College of Education & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court) – When Regulations 2007 were enacted, the Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 were retained. In the aforesaid circumstances by Regulation 8(5) it was clarified that if any institution has been granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teachers training courses after enactment of Regulations 2005 i.e. 13th January, 2006, such institution is required to be accredited itself with NAAC with a Letter Grade B. It is needless to say that Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 dated 27th December, 2005 having retained, it was always open to NCTE to remind the institutions that they were required to follow Regulations 8(3) and 8(4), if were allowed additional intake after 13th January, 2006. For the reason aforesaid the Regulation 8(5) cannot be held to be retrospective. The second question is, thereby, answered in negative against the appellants.
Sanjeev Kumar Jain Versus Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- In view of the above, the order dated 20.1.2010 of the High Court, to the extent it levies costs of Rs. 45,28,000/- on the appellant is set aside and in its place it is directed that the appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal before the High Court as per Rules plus Rs. 3000/- as exemplary costs to the respondents.
The material facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: The appellants, one late Harshad S. Mehta, their other family members and the corporate entities belonging to the family members had purchased more than 90 lakh shares in Apollo. Except for the holding of two family members, the entire holding came to be attached by a notification on 6th June, 1992. Under the said notification, 29 entities both individual and corporate were notified under Section 3(2) of the Special Court Act.
UOI Vs M/s Nitdip Textile Processors Pvt Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- The classification made by the legislature appears to be reasonable for the reason that the legislature has grouped two categories of assessees namely, the assessees whose dues are quantified but not paid and the assessees who are issued with the Demand and Show Cause Notice on or before a particular date, month and year. The Legislature has not extended this benefit to those persons who do not fall under this category or group.
CIT vs. Bhari Information Tech Systems (Supreme Court of India)- Deduction under Section 80HHC (Section 80HHE also falls in Chapter VI‐A) is to be worked out not on the basis of regular income tax profits but it has to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profits in a case where Section 115JA is applicable. In the said judgment the dichotomy between regular income tax profits and adjusted book profits under Section 115JA is clearly brought out.
